For an interested, but not overly-interested, party in the Falklands war, what single book would you recommend for a good overview of the entire conflict? Can't say that I'd read 7 books on the subject, but a recommendation for a good singular volume would be appreciated.

Hastings and Jenkins book "The Battle for the Falklands" remains a good choice.

lol. nein. I do remember it well. I remember the depression of the failed rescue of the Hostages in Iran as well. Part of the reason I remain fond of Reagan. He had his faults, but he was integral to making the average US citizen believe in his country's military again after the bitter taste of defeat in conflicts like Vietnam, and the malese of the late 70's. Its really interesting now, to think back on the climate and culture of the day, when the fear of nuclear armageddon was so prevalient.

I guess its our equivilent to the generation that remembers WWII trying to explain to a youngster the mindset that allowed for actions that today are so easily judged. Neillands captured one aspect of it with simple brilliance.

anyway. It makes one think. There was also the famous night Sadam dropped Scuds on Israel......and one being asked..."what now?!!" heh. Hindsight is so wonderful to percieved wisdom.

For an interested, but not overly-interested, party in the Falklands war, what single book would you recommend for a good overview of the entire conflict? Can't say that I'd read 7 books on the subject, but a recommendation for a good singular volume would be appreciated.

Was down there a couple of years back. I think the Brits are a bit better prepared for things now but sustaining another campaign down there would be the trick. There is a new base which is designed to form the front end of an air-bridge and I am sure that there would be a very powerful land and air force there within 72 hours, but the RN has undergone some big cuts lately.

B

Have you noticed when Argentina increased the rhetoric? After our government scraped our carriers, French reliance being a joke.

Amazing how many underestimations occur that result in a resounding defeat. Argentina and the UK's response, Japan and the USA's response, etc.

Just look at Georgia in the war for South Ossetia. I still can't understand a bit what madness had befallen their army commanders. Russia sent forces to the border and openly declared they will intervene should Georgia attack.

Still, they didn't even try to bomb Roki tunnel when they opened histilities.

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

After the Russian performance in Finland and the own performance against the supposedly superb French army, it wasn't that much far off in their calculations. If you look at the russian losses in 1941, you would guess any democratic nation would ask for peace - which btw Stalin did twice in 1941, too.

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

Not sure if its already been mentioned, but a lot of the Argentine bombs failed to detonate after hitting ships due to not having time to arm. A UK TV reporter mentioned this fact and the Agentinainas got wind of it.........he was not a popular bloke after the war thats for certain!

The failures of German intelligence didn't help much as they swore the Soviets would be incapable of fielding more than 180 divisions. Even after more than 360 divisions had been identified the Germans continued to live in denial.

Do you know the only record where Hitler speaks in private? It is about 10 minutes long and he talks with Mannerheim about 42 or 43. He said "We couldn't even barly imagine that they had 10.000 tanks. 10.000! But if we had known, our attack would've been even more important!"

As said above. There was a chance to win and had Germany accepted one of the two peace proposals in 41, it would've won. But of course, accepting the peace wasn't doable with that ideology, as well as freeing the ukrainians and using them to "conquer russia with russians".

< Message edited by Historiker -- 4/4/2012 3:03:56 PM >

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

Do you know the only record where Hitler speaks in private? It is about 10 minutes long and he talks with Mannerheim about 42 or 43. He said "We couldn't even barely imagine that they had 10,000 tanks. 10,000! But if we had known, our attack would've been even more important!"

As said above. There was a chance to win and had Germany accepted one of the two peace proposals in 41, it would've won. But of course, accepting the peace wasn't doable with that ideology, as well as freeing the ukrainians and using them to "conquer russia with russians".

Spot on. Nazi ideology was the Achilles heel.

To entertain the thought that they needed the people they had conquered to help them attain their goals was an anathema to the Nazi mindset.

It could never achieve the results of its ambition in the East, it was to all intents and purpose's, self soiling and self immolating.

_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times, but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy.- Michael Burleigh

Do you know the only record where Hitler speaks in private? It is about 10 minutes long and he talks with Mannerheim about 42 or 43. He said "We couldn't even barely imagine that they had 10,000 tanks. 10,000! But if we had known, our attack would've been even more important!"

As said above. There was a chance to win and had Germany accepted one of the two peace proposals in 41, it would've won. But of course, accepting the peace wasn't doable with that ideology, as well as freeing the ukrainians and using them to "conquer russia with russians".

Spot on. Nazi ideology was the Achilles heel.

To entertain the thought that they needed the people they had conquered to help them attain their goals was an anathema to the Nazi mindset.

It could never achieve the results of its ambition in the East, it was to all intents and purpose's, self soiling and self immolating.

It doesn't seem impossible to conquer everything to the Ural, if the supply train works. The reason why it didn't is - and here we are again - to a signifcant part thanks to the ideology. If there aren't partisans but several hundred thousand, or even millions, Ukrainians who want to "thank" Moskow for Holodomor, you may finally get where you want. But the Nazis made many Ukrainians (and Belorussians) believe that Stalin seemed to be the better choice as their master... But of course, there are several other reasons for Germany's defeat in the East that lie in Germany itself.

Whoever interested: I have a copy of the record mentioned above!

< Message edited by Historiker -- 4/4/2012 4:22:35 PM >

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

It doesn't seem impossible to conquer everything to the Ural, if the supply train works. The reason why it didn't is - and here we are again - to a signifcant part thanks to the ideology. If there aren't partisans but several hundred thousand, or even millions, Ukrainians who want to "thank" Moskow for Holodomor, you may finally get where you want. But the Nazis made many Ukrainians (and Belorussians) believe that Stalin seemed to be the better choice as their master... But of course, there are several other reasons for Germany's defeat in the East that lie in Germany itself.

Whoever interested: I have a copy of the record mentioned above!

Of course there were many other reasons other than the ideology.

To be able to convince people that Stalin, Beria, the NKVD etc were preferable to the Germans is some trick, but irrational ideology is like that.

_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times, but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy.- Michael Burleigh

Its really interesting now, to think back on the climate and culture of the day, when the fear of nuclear armageddon was so prevalient.

My "fear" day was arriving at work one morning and the 3 SSBN's that had been tied up along side when I went home the night before were gone. For those that don't know, SSBN's had a schedule you could follow on a calender. So when they were gone, I just knew somebody some where was about to push the button.

It turned out that during the night the Soviets had gone into Afghanistan. It was a scary time before we got the news.

Normally I would be in full support of the return of any colonial aquisition. Most were gained a the cost of other smaller powers who have a much more legitimate claim. However, the Falklands were not inhabited when discovered and settled by the Europeans. It would be a differnt matter if the islands were seized by a colonial power and native population displaced but this was not the case.

I will say this. I don't give a damn who owns it in the end. Does not matter to me. I am just not interested in US troops being projected into another conflict. We have been asking too much of our soldiers as of late and it is beginning to show. They need a big break. And we could well afford to spend a little money elsewhere. The US did not get involved in the first Falkland war because it in no way served our strategic interest. I like our British allies but that was a wise policy decision then and it is now.

Normally I would be in full support of the return of any colonial aquisition. Most were gained a the cost of other smaller powers who have a much more legitimate claim.

So you would be happy to see, using this logic, Texas returned to Mexico perhaps?

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

The US did not get involved in the first Falkland war because it in no way served our strategic interest. I like our British allies but that was a wise policy decision then and it is now.

Quite so. From the British point of view it DOES serve British interests.

Hilary Clinton calling them 'Los Malvinas', in her comments does not help the matter.

And yes, I like and admire our American allies, but in my opinion there is no 'special relationship' between the two countries. America and Great Britain have different strategic interests, thus it always was and will forever be.

_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times, but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy.- Michael Burleigh

As their population wants to be British, the matter should already be decided. I am convinced the Argentinians aren't interested in another bloody nose. Though should they try, I'd vote to help the British defend their country.

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

As their population wants to be British, the matter should already be decided. I am convinced the Argentinians aren't interested in another bloody nose. Though should they try, I'd vote to help the British defend their country.

I totally agree.

_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times, but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy.- Michael Burleigh

Normally I would be in full support of the return of any colonial aquisition. Most were gained a the cost of other smaller powers who have a much more legitimate claim.

So you would be happy to see, using this logic, Texas returned to Mexico perhaps?

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

The US did not get involved in the first Falkland war because it in no way served our strategic interest. I like our British allies but that was a wise policy decision then and it is now.

Quite so. From the British point of view it DOES serve British interests.

Hilary Clinton calling them 'Los Malvinas', in her comments does not help the matter.

And yes, I like and admire our American allies, but in my opinion there is no 'special relationship' between the two countries. America and Great Britain have different strategic interests, thus it always was and will forever be.

I disagree somewhat with your last statement. The US has stretegic interests and the UK has strategic interests. There is a large portion of those two susbsets that overlap. So while there are certain important areas for the UK that the US does not put importance on (and vice- versa), the two countries share more common intetests than perhaps any other two countries in the world. In my mind that does make for a "Special Relationship".